Agents used for chemoprevention of prostate cancer may influence PSA secretion independently of cell growth in the LNCaP model of human prostate cancer progression

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the inhibitory growth effects of different potential chemopreventive agents in vitro and to determine their influence on PSA mRNA and protein expression with an established screening platform. METHODS: LNCaP and C4-2 cells were incubated with genistein, seleno-L-methionine, lycopene, DL-alpha-tocopherol, and trans-beta-carotene at three different concentrations and cell growth was determined by the MTT assay. PSA mRNA expression was assessed by quantitative real-time RT-PCR and secreted PSA protein levels were quantified by the microparticle enzyme immunoassay. RESULTS: Genistein, seleno-l-methionine and lycopene inhibited LNCaP cell growth, and the proliferation of C4-2 cells was suppressed by seleno-L-methionine and lycopene. PSA mRNA expression was downregulated by genistein in LNCaP but not C4-2 cells. No other compound tested altered PSA mRNA expression. PSA protein expression was downregulated by genistein, seleno-L-methionine, DL-alpha-tocopherol in LNCaP cells. In C4-2 cells only genistein significantly reduced the secretion of PSA protein. CONCLUSIONS: In the LNCaP progression model PSA expression depends on the compound, its concentration and on the hormonal dependence of the cell line used and does not necessarily reflect cell growth or death. Before potential substances are evaluated in clinical trials using PSA as a surrogate end point marker, their effect on PSA mRNA and protein expression has to be considered to correctly assess treatment response by PSA.

[Swiss clinical practice guidelines for skin cancer in organ transplant recipients]

Swiss clinical practice guidelines for skin cancer in organ transplant recipients Transplant patients have increased over the last decades. As a consequence of long-term immunosuppression, skin cancer, in particular squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), has become an important problem. Screening and education of potential organ transplant recipients (OTRs) regarding prevention of sun damage and early recognition of skin cancer are important before transplantation. Once transplanted, OTRs should be seen yearly by a dermatologist to ensure compliance with sun avoidance as well as for treatment of precancerosis and SCC. Early removal is the best treatment for SCC. Reduction of immunosuppression, switch to mTOR inhibitors and chemoprevention with acitretin may reduce the incidence of SCC. The dermatological follow-up of OTRs should be integrated into a comprehensive post-transplant management strategy.

Pre- and posttransplant management of solid organ transplant recipients: risk-adjusted follow-up

Solid organ transplant recipients (SOTR) have an increased risk of skin cancer due to their long-term immunosuppressive state. As the number of these patients is increasing, as well as their life expectancy, it is important to discuss the screening and management of skin cancer in this group of patients. The role of the dermatologist, in collaboration with the transplant team, is important both before transplantation, where patients are screened for skin lesions and the individual risk for skin cancer development is assessed, and after transplantation. Posttransplant management consists of regular dermatological consultations (the frequency depends on different factors discussed below), where early skin cancer screening and management, as well as patient education on sun protective behavior is taught and enforced. Indeed, SOTR are very sensitive to sun damage due to their immunosuppressive state, leading to cumulative sun damage which results in field cancerization with numerous lesions such as in situ squamous cell carcinoma, actinic keratosis and Bowen's disease. These lesions should be recognized and treated as early as possible. Therapeutic options discussed will involve topical therapy, surgical management, adjustment of the patient's immunosuppressive therapy (i.e. reduction of immunosuppression and/or switch to mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors) and chemoprevention with the retinoid acitretin, which reduces the recurrence rate of squamous cell carcinoma. The dermatological follow-up of SOTR should be integrated into the comprehensive posttransplant care.

Cannabinoid receptor ligands as potential anticancer agents--high hopes for new therapies?

OBJECTIVES: The endocannabinoid system is an endogenous lipid signalling network comprising arachidonic-acid-derived ligands, cannabinoid (CB) receptors, transporters and endocannabinoid degrading enzymes. The CB(1) receptor is predominantly expressed in neurons but is also co-expressed with the CB(2) receptor in peripheral tissues. In recent years, CB receptor ligands, including Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol, have been proposed as potential anticancer agents. KEY FINDINGS: This review critically discusses the pharmacology of CB receptor activation as a novel therapeutic anticancer strategy in terms of ligand selectivity, tissue specificity and potency. Intriguingly, antitumour effects mediated by cannabinoids are not confined to inhibition of cancer cell proliferation; cannabinoids also reduce angiogenesis, cell migration and metastasis, inhibit carcinogenesis and attenuate inflammatory processes. In the last decade several new selective CB(1) and CB(2) receptor agents have been described, but most studies in the area of cancer research have used non-selective CB ligands. Moreover, many of these ligands exert prominent CB receptor-independent pharmacological effects, such as activation of the G-protein-coupled receptor GPR55, peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma and the transient receptor potential vanilloid channels. SUMMARY: The role of the endocannabinoid system in tumourigenesis is still poorly understood and the molecular mechanisms of cannabinoid anticancer action need to be elucidated. The development of CB(2)-selective anticancer agents could be advantageous in light of the unwanted central effects exerted by CB(1) receptor ligands. Probably the most interesting question is whether cannabinoids could be useful in chemoprevention or in combination with established chemotherapeutic agents.